Hey WoodEATINGWarrior... you wiss my point. If you follow my posts you see I post little in terms of opinion. I realize all to well that opinions vary. Facts do not. It is not an opinion that a corvette is faster than a cavalier. It is not an opinion that a porsche handles better than a mini-van. The same as it is not an opinion that a 400EX has more low end, mid range, top end and handles better than a warrior. FACT! Momma always said swallow your food before you talk. In this case, read the facts before you speak.

 

You are so full of it... I agreed w/ you that the 400EX has MORE power. As soon as you use the word "better" though... that is a word that describes an opinion. You get a woman who is about to deliver a dang baby, and ask her if she wants a ride to the hospital in a minivan or Porsche and she is going to say the minivan. The Porshe is better at the fast stuff, but the minivan gives a smoother ride. It's like comparing the ride of a Cadilac to a Porsche... it is an opinion as to which car is better... just like comparing apples to oranges!!!!

 

Wait, wait, wait... are you claiming that a warrior rides better than a 400EX? You are just trying to open another can of worms. I suppose that is could be construed as an opinion that a warrior rides better than a 400EX if you are needing your guts rattled. We were justing a 3 ft jump last night, not pig deal and the warriors did fine. Unfortunately the riders felt like they fell off the top bunk. The 400EX's landed like a badmitten birdie and the Warrior's landed like bowling *****. What is your OPINION!

 

You are still blind to the whole discussion between us. It isn't whether the Warrior is better or not. What were are discussing is that you are trying to push your opinions off as facts. I do prefer the way the Warrior rides for the riding I do. Most of my riding is very technical trail riding where high speed and big air don't come into play. I have hit the MX tracks though and I know the Warrior is not a smooth landing big air machine... that isn't what I bought it for. The only thing I was saying in all my posts is that you need to realize that just cause most people have the same opinion (the 400EX is better than the Warrior) that doesn't make it a fact, and it doesn't mean the 400EX is the "better" machine for everybody.

 

I think we're starting to miss the point here. I'm not argueing that the Warrior is a better all-around sport bike compared to the 400EX. It's not. The Warrior's stock suspension sucks, it's front heavy, and it tends to nose-dive on long jumps. What I'm saying is the Warrior's front-heavy stance makes it a decent hill climber. It actually makes you kinda lazy when climbing hills (In the first couple days after I got my Raptor I almost rolled it down a hill because I was hill climbing without leaning at all). You can get away with just sitting on the seat and climbing hills on a Warrior. You can't on a Raptor or a 400EX. That's why I argue that the Warrior is such a good hill climber - Because it's weight distribution is more laid out for hill climbing than the 400EX.

 

You hit the nail on the head Ice. Thanks.

 

Hey guys, Iceman, very good point and I have experienced that first hand as I rode a Warrior for two years and climbed some pretty tough hills with it. I have even climbed the very SAME hills with both. The 400EX is a fun and aggressive hill climber and now that I have gotten used to it I do much better. We have joked about weighting the front end for hill climbing and some other ideas the guys have come up with that I won't mention but that would ruin its handling characteristics and mess up that great jumping. The most difficult thing is my size and being able to "kiss the bumper" yet keep traction on the rear.....my body is not long enough. So hill climbs are always an extra thrill and challenge for me. I just got through racing two harescramble races with big, steep, rooted hills and I made it up all of them but I did wheelie up a few. The thing that really counts is that all of us have something we enjoy and have the most fun we can on.

 

Hey freaky, we should go riding it would be fun embarrasing your "high and Mighty 400ex" some ppl just have alot of money and just go buy atvs because they are bored. I can tell this by your profile you seem to have alot of very new items. Not saying you are a bad person you just have more than some ppl and because of that i think your thoughts are of superiority. Not trying to start a war with you but the fact is i have propably spent more time working on atv's than you have riding them. I know my bike can climb better than any stock 400. I have spent lots of time on lots of different bikes. A warrior is by no means the best out there, i reserve that for the 89 250r. Iam also impressed with the 400ex i think its the best new quad you can buy. But it will not match up to my bike without mods. And as far as a mojave, i laughed when i read that. They have very advanced engines and put out some decent power but they weigh as much as a warrior without as much power. I was really just kidding about embarrasing you, i just wish you would quit telling me wat the "facts" are, and quit running other ppls stuff down.

 

check out this link
http://www.atvnews.com/output.cfm?id=33571

Sorry the Warrior is not in the shootout, but I thought it was an interesting article.

 

On small hills where the additional power of the 400ex is'nt necessary, the Warrior is a better, more controlled climber due the heavier front end.
On hills that require more power to get up, the 400ex kills the Warrior....assuming the rider is skilled enough to get the 400ex over the top.